NJ Laws Directions to Ken Vercammen and Associates Ken Vercammens Resume Ken Vercammen articles

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates
A Law Office with Experienced Attorneys for Your New Jersey Legal Needs

2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison NJ 08817
732-572-0500
1-800-655-2977

Personal Injury and Criminal
on Weekends 732-261-4005

Princeton Area
68 South Main St.
Cranbury, NJ 08512
By Appointment Only
Toll Free 800-655-2977


Civil Model Jury Charge 2.25 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRON

Civil Model Jury Charge

2.25 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (SEXUAL AND OTHER HARASSMENT)(Approved 11/1999; Revised 2/2013)

NOTE TO JUDGE

The following charge is based on the Supreme Courts decision inLehmann v. Toys R Us, Inc., 132N.J.587 (1993), regarding the definition of a hostile work environment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the standard for employer liability for supervisory harassment, and the decisions inBlakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 164N.J.38 (2000),andCerdeira v. Martindale-Hubbell, 402N.J. Super.486 (App. Div. 2008), regarding employer liability for co-worker harassment.Not all hostile environment cases will require that this charge be given in its entirety. Portions not applicable to a given case should be omitted.

This charge may be used in cases of both supervisory harassment (i.e., when the alleged harasser is a supervisor) and non-supervisory harassment (i.e., when the alleged harasser is a co-worker). However, as explained below, some modifications will be required depending upon whether the alleged harasser is a supervisory or non-supervisory employee.

In cases of both supervisory and non-supervisory harassment, the standards for determining whether the conduct constitutes unlawful harassment are the same.Accordingly, no modifications to Section 3 (Does the Conduct Constitute Unlawful Harassment?) will be required.

However, the standards for imposing liability on the employer for the harassment vary depending upon whether the alleged harasser is a supervisor or a non-supervisor.Thus, Section 4 (Should Defendant Employer be Held Responsible for the Unlawful Harassment?) will need to be tailored appropriately depending upon the identity of the harasser as indicated in bracketed comments to the court in that section.

In addition, the court should note that although this charge does address the issue ofemployerliability under the LAD for acts of sexual harassment, it does not address the issue ofindividualliability,e.g., the individual liability of the alleged harasser and/or other employees who failed to adequately respond to the alleged harassment.Individual liability under the LAD is addressed in Model Civil Jury Charge 2.22A.]

1.Overview of Issues to Be Decided

Plaintiff claims that [s]he was subjected to harassment on the basis of her/his[insert legally protected characteristic].Such harassment is a form of discrimination based on[insert legally protected characteristic]and is prohibited by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. To resolve plaintiffs harassment claim, you must decide three issues:

First, you must decide whether the complained-of conduct actually occurred.

Second, if you decide that the complained-of conduct did occur, you must then decide whether that conduct constitutes harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic].

Third, if you decide that the conduct does constitute harassmenton the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic], you must then decide whether defendant [employer name] should be held responsible for that conduct.

I will now explain each of these three issues to you in more detail.

2.Did the Conduct Occur?

The first issue you must decide is whether any of the complained-of conduct actually occurred. If you find that plaintiff has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the alleged conduct occurred, then you must return a verdict for defendant(s) on the claim of harassmenton the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic].

If, on the other hand, you find by a preponderance of the evidence that some or all of the complained-of conduct did occur, then you must move on to the second issue.

3.Does the Conduct Constitute Unlawful Harassment?

The second issue you must decide is whether the conduct that you find has occurred constitutes harassment on the basis of the plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic]. To prove that the conduct constitutes harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic], plaintiff must prove two elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

First, plaintiff must prove that the conduct occurred because of her/his [insert legally protected characteristic].

Second, plaintiff must prove that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable[person of the same legally protected class][1]believe that the conditions of employment were altered and that the working environment was intimidating, hostile or abusive.

I will explain each of these two elements in more detail.

a.Did the Conduct Occur Because Of Plaintiffs[Insert Legally Protected Characteristic]?

First, plaintiff must prove that the conduct occurred because of her/his[insert legally protected characteristic].Stated differently, plaintiff must prove that the conduct would not have occurred if her/his[insert legally protected characteristic]has been different.

When the harassing conduct directly refers to the plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic], the because of element is automatically satisfied.Thus, for example, if plaintiff alleges that she has been subjected to harassing comments about the lesser abilities of members of her/his[insert legally protected characteristic], [s]he has established that the harassment occurred because of her/ his[insert legally protected characteristic].

Even conduct that does not directly refer to the plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic]can constitute harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic].However, when the conduct does not directly refer to the plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic], the plaintiff must produce some evidence to show that the conduct occurred because of her/his[insert legally protected characteristic].For example, the plaintiff might show that only employees of the same[insert legally protected characteristic]suffered the harassment.All that is required is a showing that it is more likely than not that the harassment occurred because of the plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic].[2]

The plaintiff does not have to prove that the employer or the alleged harasser intended to harass her/him or intended to create a hostile working environment.The employers or alleged harassers intent is not at issue. The issue is simply whether the conduct occurred because of plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic].

If you find that the conduct would have occurred regardless of plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic], then there has been no unlawful harassment. In other words, if the alleged harasser treats all employees equally poorly, regardless of their[insert legally protected characteristic], you must return a verdict for defendants on the plaintiffs claim of harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic].

If, on the other hand, you find that the conduct did occur because of plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic], then you must decide the second element.

b.Was the Conduct Sufficiently Severe or Pervasive?

The second element plaintiff must prove to establish that the conduct constituted unlawful harassment is that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]believe that the working conditions were altered and that the working environment was intimidating, hostile or abusive.

When deciding whether plaintiff has proved this element, you should consider the following:

(1)The law does not require that the workplace be free of all vulgarity or sexually-laced speech or conduct.Occasional, isolated and/or trivial remarks or conduct are generally insufficient to constitute unlawful harassment.Rather, only speech or conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or intimidating working environment can constitute unlawful harassment.

(2)In determining whether the conduct was severe or pervasive, keep in mind that the conduct does not have to be both severeandpervasive; the conduct need only be severeorpervasive.The conduct can consist of a single severe incident or an accumulation of incidents, although it will be a rare and extreme case in which a single incident will be so severe that it would make the working environment hostile.[3]When the conduct consists of multiple incidents, you should not consider each incident individually, but should consider the totality of the incidents.Numerous incidents that would not be sufficient if considered individually may be sufficient when considered together.

(3)The plaintiff need not personally have been the target of each or any instance of offensive or harassing conduct for you to find that the working environment was hostile.You may consider evidence of offensive or harassing conduct directed toward other workers if plaintiff personally witnessed that conduct.

(4)In deciding whether the conduct in this case is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment, you must view the conduct from the perspective of a reasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person], not from plaintiffs own subjective perspective.In other words, the issue you must decide isnotwhether plaintiffpersonallybelieved that her/his working environment was hostile.The issue you must decide is whether areasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]would find the working environment hostile.Thus, if only an overly-sensitive[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]would view the conduct as sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment, but a reasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]would not, it is not harassing conduct for which the plaintiff can recover.By the same token, even if plaintiff personally did not find the alleged conduct to be severe or pervasive, but a reasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]would, it is harassing conduct for which the plaintiff can recover.You must use your own judgment in deciding whether a reasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]would consider the working environment hostile.

Finally, it is not necessary that the plaintiff show that [s]he has actually been psychologically harmed by the conduct, or that she has suffered any economic loss as a consequence of the conduct.Those issues may be relevant to the damages plaintiff can recover, but they are not relevant to the issue of whether the conduct constitutes unlawful sexual harassment.[4]

If, after applying these guidelines, you find that plaintiff has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged conduct constitutes harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic], then you must return a verdict for the defendants on plaintiffs claim of unlawful harassment.

If, on the other hand, you find that plaintiff has proved that the conduct constitutes harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic], then you must decide the third issue.

4.Should Defendant Employer be Held Responsible for the Unlawful Harassment?

The third issue you must decide is whether defendant[employer name]should be held responsible for the harassing conduct of[name(s) of alleged harasser(s)].[5]In other words, you must decide whether[employer name]should have to pay damages because of the harassing conduct of[name(s) of alleged harasser(s)].

Although[alleged harassers name]is an employee of [employer name], the law provides that an employer is not automatically liable for all damages caused by an employee who engages in unlawful harassment.More specifically, although an employer will always be liable for economic damages, such as wage loss, an employer is not automatically liable for emotional distress damages caused by an employee who engages in unlawful harassment.

To impose liability on defendant [employer name] for any emotional distress plaintiff has suffered, plaintiff must prove at least one of the following theories for employer liability by a preponderance of the evidence:

Text

Text

First, plaintiff must prove that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take effective remedial measures to stop it.

Text

Or second, plaintiff must prove that defendant[employer name]delegated to[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]the authority to control the working environment and[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]abused that authority to create a hostile work environment.

Or third, plaintiff must prove that defendant[employer name]was negligent by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring.

I will now explain each of these theories in more detail.

Text

a.Failure to Take Remedial Action

As I said, one way defendant[employer name]may be liable forthe harassmentis if the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to stop it.Effective remedial actions are those reasonably calculated to end the harassment.The reasonableness of an employers response must be judged by its ability to stop harassment by the person who engaged in the harassment.

Thus, in this case, if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant[employers name]knew or should have known about the alleged sexual harassment and failed to take prompt and effective measures reasonably designed to stop that harassment, defendant [employer name] is liable for the sexual harassment.

Text

b.Delegation of Authority

A second way defendant[employers name]may be liable is if it delegated to[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]the authority to control the working environment and[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]abused that authority to create a hostile work environment.

To prove that defendant[employers name]is liable to plaintiff based on its delegation of authority to[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)], plaintiff must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1)That defendant[employers name]delegated authority to[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]to control the situation of which plaintiff complains; and

(2)[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]exercised that authority; and

(3)[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]exercise of authority resulted in unlawful harassment; and

(4)the authority delegated by defendant[employer name]toname(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]aided[name(s) of alleged harassing supervisor(s)]in harassing plaintiff.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved each of these elements, then defendant[employers name]is liable for the alleged unlawful harassment.If any one of these elements is not proved, then defendant[employers name]cannot be held liable based on its delegation of authority.

Text

c.Negligence

Text

The third possible way defendant[employers name]may be liable is if plaintiff can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant[employers name]was negligent by failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the harassment from occurring [,and if so, the absence of such measures was the proximate cause of the harm plaintiff claims she suffered].

This is because an employer has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful harassment from occurring in the workplace.

To determine whether defendant[employers name]was negligent, you may consider the following:

Whether it had in place well-publicized and enforced anti-harassment policies;

Whether it had effective formal and informal complaint structures;

Whether it had in place anti-harassment training programs; and

Whether it had in place harassment monitoring mechanisms.

You may consider the existence of such measures as evidence of due care by the employer, and the lack of such measures as evidence of a lack of due care by the employer.However, the absence of such measures does not automatically constitute negligence, nor does the existence of such measures automatically demonstrate the absence of negligence.

If you find that plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence any one of these theories that I have just explained, then you should hold[employers name]responsible for any alleged emotional distress damages plaintiff suffered.In that case, you will need to determine the amount, if any, of damages to award plaintiff for her alleged emotional distress.However, I will not at this time give you specific instructions on the issue of damages, but rather, will do so later.

If, on the other hand, you find that plaintiff has not proved any one of these theories by a preponderance of the evidence, then you may not hold[employers name]responsible for any alleged emotional distress damages plaintiff suffered.

d.Summary of Unlawful Harassment Elements

I will now summarize all of this for you. To decide plaintiffs claim of harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic], you must decide three issues:

First, you must determine whether plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged conduct actually occurred.

Second, if you find that some or all of the alleged conduct occurred, you must decide whether plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct constitutes harassment on the basis of[insert legally protected characteristic].This requires that you decide (1) whether the conduct occurred because of plaintiffs[insert legally protected characteristic], and if so, (2) whether the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable[insert legally protected class to which plaintiff belongs, such as woman, African-American, or older person]believe that the conditions of employment were altered and the working environment was intimidating, hostile or abusive.

And, third, if you find that unlawful harassment occurred, you must decide whether plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant[employers name]should be held liable for any alleged emotional distress damages plaintiff may have suffered.This requires that you consider the theories I just explained: (1) whether the employer knew or should have known about the

Text

harassment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action;

(2) whether the supervisor abused authority delegated to him by the employer; or (3) whether the employer was negligent by failing to prevent the harassment. The employer ma


[1]The standard is whether a person of the same legally protected class would find the work environment to be hostile.See,e.g.,Lehmann v. Toys R Us, Inc., 132N.J.587, 603-04 (1993) (holding that when plaintiff in sexual harassment case is female, reasonable woman standard must be used);Cutler v. Dorn, 196N.J.419, 430 (holding that [a]lthoughLehmanninvolved sexual harassment in the workplace,Lehmanns test applies generally to hostile work environment claims and that where, as here, a hostile work environment claim involves allegations of harassment based on religious faith or ancestry, the inquiry is whether a reasonable person of plaintiffs religion or ancestry would consider the workplace acts and comments sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile working environment).

[2]When the plaintiff is not a member of a historically disadvantaged group, the plaintiff must make the additional showing that the defendant employer is the rare employer who discriminates against the historically-privileged group.Lehmann,supra, 132N.J.at 605-06.Thus, in such cases, the jury should be charged that the plaintiff must prove the defendant is the rare employer who discriminates against the historically privileged group to which the plaintiff belongs.

[3]See Lehmann,supra, 132N.J.at 606-607 (holding that [a]lthough it will be a rare and extreme case in which a single incident will be so severe that it would, from the perspective of a reasonable woman, make the working environment hostile, such a case is certainly possible);Taylor v. Metzger,152N.J.490, 500 (1998) (reiterating that it will be a rare and extreme case in which a single incident is sufficient to be actionable, but finding that single racial remark at issue could be sufficiently severe to be actionable).

[4]More or less detailed instructions regarding the severe or pervasive requirement are possible, depending upon the facts of each case.InBaliko v. Intl Union of Operating Engineers,322N.J. Super.261, 275 (App. Div. 1999), the court stated:In determining whether comments or gestures are severe or pervasive, the trial judge must instruct the jury to consider:(1) the total physical environment of the plaintiffs work area; (2) the degree and type of obscenity that filled the environment of the workplace, both before and after the plaintiffs were assigned to the specific workplace; (3) the nature of the unwelcome sexual words or sexual gestures; (4) the frequency of the offensive encounters; (5) the severity of the offensive encounters; (6) whether the unwelcome comments or gestures were physically threatening; (7) whether the offensive encounters unreasonably interfered with any plaintiffs work performance, but subject to the admonition that each plaintiff is not obliged to prove that the unwelcome comments or gestures actually did interfere with each plaintiffs work performance; and (8) whether the offensive encounters had an effect on any plaintiffs psychological well-being, but also subject to an admonition that each plaintiff need not demonstrate specific psychological harm.

[5]As set forth in the Note to the Judge at the beginning of the charge, the standards for imposing liability on the employer vary depending upon whether the alleged harasser is a supervisory or non-supervisory employee.This footnote will elaborate on the different standards.

InLehmann,the Court addressed in detail the circumstances under which an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment byasupervisor.In all cases of supervisory sexual harassment, an employer is strictly liable for equitable damages, such as back pay and front pay.132N.J.at 619.Employer liability for compensatory damages, such as emotional distress, is determined under common-law agency principles.Id.at 619-620.Moreover, different common-law agency principles apply depending upon whether the supervisor was acting within or without the scope of his employment.If the supervisor acts within the scope of his employment, the employer is strictly liable for compensatory damages.Ibid.If the supervisor acts outside the scope of his employment (described byLehmannas the more common situation), employer liability is determined according to the agency principles set forth in Section 219(2) of theRestatement (Second) of Agency.This charge assumes that the supervisor was acting outside the scope of his employment, and thus, incorporates the Section 219(2) principles.

Lehmanndid not address the issue of employer liability for acts of sexual harassment by anon-supervisor.However, other decisions sinceLehmannhave held that an employer can be held liable for co-worker harassment when the employer knew or should have known about the alleged harassment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action and where the employers failure to take effective preventive measures caused the harassment to occur.See,e.g.,Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 164N.J.38, 62 (2000) (holding that employers do have a duty to take effective measures to stop co-employee harassment when the employer knows or has reason to know that such harassment is taking place);Cerdeira v. Martindale-Hubbell, 402 N.J. Super. 486, 493-94 (App. Div. 2008) (holding that employer can be held liable for co-worker harassment if employer did not have effective anti-harassment policy and complaint mechanism and failure to have effective policy and complaint mechanism caused harm to plaintiff).

Thus, only the Failure to Take Remedial Action and Negligence portion of this charge below (Sections 4a and 4c) should be charged in cases involving employer liability for co-worker harassment.

kenv
Kenneth Vercammen was the Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year
Receive free NJ Laws Email newsletter with current laws and cases

New Article of the Week

Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Since 1985, KENNETH VERCAMMEN has worked as a personal injury attorney, working for injury victims and their families. By taking a hard-hitting, aggressive approach toward the insurance companies, KENNETH VERCAMMEN and our co-counsel have consistently obtained outstanding results for many injured clients over the years I am proud to have worked on cases in various capacities, small and large. While obviously prior results cannot guarantee the outcome of future cases, I can guarantee that you case will receive the same degree of dedication and hard work that went into each of these prior cases.

In direct contrast to the hard-hitting approach we take toward the insurance companies is the soft approach we take toward our clients. I am proud of my compassionate staff as I am of the outstanding financial results they have achieved. For many years, I have watched them treat our clients with patience, dignity and respect. I would have it no other way.

Many years ago, I attended a seminar sponsored by the American Bar Association on Law Practice Management. This was to help insure that each of our clients is always treated like a person -- not a file! We recognize that you are innocent victims and that you have placed your trust in us. Please understand that we understand what you are going through. Feel comforted that we are here to help you.

If you retain KENNETH VERCAMMEN to represent you, we will give you the same advice we give each of our clients -- concentrate on your life, you family and your health. We will take care of everything else. Leave all of the work and worry about your legal rights to us. Trust us. Believe in us. Have faith in us as your attorneys. Understand that we will always to do what we believe is best for you and your case. Helping you is our job. In fact, it is our only job -- guiding injury victims like you through one of the most difficult times of your lives, with care and concern -- while fighting aggressively to the limits of the law to obtain compensation and justice for each of you!

Print our Personal Injury Questionnaire on our Website, Fill it out and Fax back, so we can determine if we can help you obtain an injury settlement. We would welcome an opportunity to prove to you what we have proven to thousands of injured clients -- that you can feel comfortable and secure in the fact that KENNETH VERCAMMEN - Trial Attorney We Fight To Win.

When you have been injured in an accident or collision, you are worried about who is going to pay your medical bills, lost wages, and other damages. The last thing you want is to be taken advantage of by an insurance company. If you dont protect your rights, you may not be able to make a claim.

Insurance companies have attorneys and adjusters whose goal is to pay you as little as they can. You need a New Jersey personal injury lawyer to fight for you. I am dedicated to helping your recover as much money as possible under the law.

You need an attorney who will work hard to protect your rights, maximize your insurance settlement and minimize the hassles of dealing with the insurance companies. You need an experienced and aggressive New Jersey trial lawyer with PROVEN RESULTS who will fight for you. Having an experienced personal injury lawyer can make the difference between getting what you deserve and getting nothing.

Without the threat of a lawyer who is willing to go to trial and seek a big jury verdict, why would an insurance company pay you what your claim is really worth? Lawsuits can be expensive, and many people do not have the money to pursue their claim. In every case, I advance all costs associated with pursuing your case and I do not ask you for a penny until we recover from the other side.

I am an experienced aggressive trial lawyer and a 3rd degree Black Belt. I am not afraid to take your case to trial if that is what it takes to maximize the amount of money your recover for your personal injury. I offer one-on-one service, and I will not hand your case off to an inexperienced lawyer or a paralegal.

Reduce the stress of making a claim.

Personal injury accidents can turn your life upside down. Making a personal injury claim can be difficult and time consuming. Once I take your case, you can stop worrying about dealing with the insurance companies and focus on recovering from your injuries. I take care of all of the paperwork, phone calls, and negotiations, so you can get on with your life.

p.s. For those clients who are afraid or reluctant to go to Court, KENNETH VERCAMMEN also offers a special -- For Settlement Only -- program. This means that if we are unable to settle with the insurance company, we will not go any further -- unless you want us to. You have my personal assurance that there will be absolutely no pressure and no obligation.

We handle personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis.

This means: YOU DONT OWE ME A LEGAL FEE UNLESS I RECOVER MONEY FOR YOU.

Call our office to schedule a "confidential" appointment 732-572-0500

Kenneth A. Vercammen is the Managing Attorney at Kenneth Vercammen & Associates in Edison, NJ. He is a New Jersey trial attorney has devoted a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey each week on personal injury matters, Criminal /Municipal Court trials, and contested Probate hearings.

Mr. Vercammen has published over 125 legal articles in national and New Jersey publications on criminal, elder law, probate and litigation topics. He is a highly regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American Bar Association, NJ ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association. His articles have been published in noted publications included New Jersey Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine, and New Jersey Lawyer. He is the Editor in Chief of the American Bar Association Tort and Insurance Committee Newsletter.

Admitted In NJ, US Supreme Court and Federal District Court.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation.

.Ken Vercammen articles

Ken Vercammens Resume
Directions to Ken Vercammen and Associates




Disclaimer This web site is purely a public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel. The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed as an endorsement.

Copyright 2017. Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.